Last Debate

Hillary Clinton went for a hail mary tonight and the quarterback wasn't even able to throw the ball.

Her attacks on Obama fell flat.

Healthcare? She's nitpicking. Any centrist American would BY FAR be more likely to agree with a law mandating parents to buy health insurance for their kids instead of mandating everyone to buy it.

NAFTA? She supported it. And instead of actually defending Nafta, which she should, she instead put the spin on and claimed that she never supported it.

Afghanistan and Iraq? She voted for the war. Simple as that.
When Tim Russert put the possibility of future conflict in Iraq, she dismissed the possibility, demonstrating a lack of understanding of the situation. While Obama said he'd be willing to use force.

Who is more likely to regain the world's respect of the United States? The cackle or the orator?

FINALLY people are asking Obama questions about Wright. Obama seems to have dealt with it well. Friend of Israel and the Jews. But rebuilding the relationship between AA and Jews is difficult (market dominant minority-HBD problem). He spoke out against antisemitism in the AA community, which is somewhat respectable.

This whole reject/denounce Farrakhan business should settle the matter.

And Clinton did not know Putin's successor (I knew his name of the top of my head). That was funny. But I think we are demonizing Russia too much. Their wealth depends on their oil, their people care little for democracy, and their national identity is under constant assault by ethnic-based succession movements throughout the world, and they are barely able to control their nuclear weapons. To say that they are our enemy is absurd. They are merely trying to regain a past glory. We really should look at genocide supporting China, or the million other tragedies in the world.

I voted already. But this election is a damn dynamic animal.

Delusional white people

Intrade puts Obama at 85% on the Democratic nomination. Clinton is making her last stand at Ohio and Texas.

Is it just me or is this crazy? A black man with the middle name Hussein is going to be running for President against a war hero. This should be a VERY interesting election. And I think that if John McCain is willing to rethink his support of Bush policies now that he's already wrapped up the nomination (Iraq, Taxes, etc), I may yet switch.

Anyway, Obama is a fad. Yes, he may have decent policy prescriptions, but when people claim that he's bringing new people into politics, it's not because of his enlightened political philosophy. It's because apathetic people now have something cool to root for and people who don't understand the policy divides in this country and how difficult it will be to overcome them.

Anyway, the wildly popular blog Stuff White people like has a post on Obama . I've been trying to put up HBD realism on the site to counter anything that speaks well of criminal minorities, but the sheer size of the comments prevents me.

Either way, it's a treasure trove. An unmoderated popular blog? That's the central spot for me to put links on my blog to posts that use evolutionary biology to back up his amusing white observations. Should be interesting.


Because white people are afraid that if they don’t like him that they will be called racist.


This is brilliant. And I think it is also half the reason why Obama does well in Caucuses.

Anyway, so I've been reading another blog occasionally which posted a pretty rough sketch of Rush Limbaugh's talking points against Obama in the coming months.




As your future President I want to thank my supporters, for their ... well, support.

Your mindless support of me, despite my complete lack of any legislative achievement, my pastor's relations with Louis Farrakhan and Libyan dictator Moamar Quadafi, or my blatantly leftist voting record while I present myself as some sort of bi-partisan agent of change.




Oh man, this is gonna be good. According to Steve Sailer, Michelle Obama failed her bar exam and wrote a stupid thesis, which is now being opened up. But then again, McCain slept with a lobbyist? Obama has ties to a radical pastor? But McCain is decaying!

Get the popcorn ready.

Machines

The immigration debate provokes a very strong reaction. This debate takes place in the same poisonous environment that characterized the beginning of the Iraq war and didn't allow for serious debate. People started asking the hard questions only after the occupation failed and we got screwed. So, in the interest of creating calm dialog and clarity, I'm going to respond to a recent comment with a story, written in the spirit of the fable of the dragon-tyrant .

Also, the Democratic debate muddles have brought up the issue too.

Bear with me, please.

------------------------------------

The year is 2050 AD. Humanity has been exterminated from the planet. They imbued machines with the spirit of man and intelligence far beyond that of man. Result? Annihilation. However, the machines now occupy the earth in different areas, each adapting to the climate to generate energy in different ways. Some are more efficient than others, such as the nuclear machines in the resource poor areas, while some are less efficient, like the machines in the oil rich areas of earth.

The objective of the entire machine society as a whole is generating knowledge, while individual machines strive for utility. In order to gain utility, however, they have to use some of their time and energy towards productivity. Now, the machines in different parts of the world have different production curves. Machines using nuclear energy are very numerous in area A of the world. They tend to have high productivity and therefore are accustomed to a high utility of existence. In area B of the world, most of the machines run on oil and coal. They have low productivity and are accustomed to low utility. The rest of the world is a mixture, with some countries having huge diversity, with solar powered, nuclear, oil, coal, fusion powered machines and so on.

There was a large area of the world, area C left untapped, with various different energy fuels. It was first discovered by Area A, and so it was mainly populated by nuclear machines, or A machines. Area D was right next door, and was mainly populated by machines from area B, or B machines.

Eventually the machines in area C came to expect a high degree of utility as a daily reality, while the B machines in area D, due to their inefficiency, had a lower productivity, but were never willing to re engineer themselves into nuclear powered machines in order to have higher productivity. So, the average machine in D had a relatively low utility.

The thing is, is that area C still had a significant amount of empty unused space that could be used by machines in other parts of the world, which was relatively crowded. So, the area C grand AI began inviting machines from all around the world to come in. However, the selection process happened to use energy efficiency as a means of selecting machines. So, more nuclear machines (A machines) came in, as well as some fusion machines (F machines), solar powered machines (S machines), and the rare outlier efficient coal/oil machine. These newcomer machines also happened to be very productive and so enjoyed a large amount of utility.

The only problem with the society was that there were some very basic functions that were left unfulfilled in the society because they required too much time and rewarded a low amount of utility, as the did not utilize the high productivity functions of the local machines.

At some point, some management-oriented machines looked nearby and took notice of the machines in area D. They noticed that the machines in area D, though very unproductive, were used to low levels of utility. The management machines also noticed that these machines had about the same level of productivity (in terms of time investment) for the low level functions that were needed to be done in Area C. So, they brought in the B machines to do the low level work.

Things seemed to go well. Most A machines in Area C benefited from the labor of the B machines, who needed very little utility to work. Some A machines were displaced, and went on to higher level functions, while others simply did nothing.

But things changed. Being surrounded by the higher utility demands of the A machines made the B machines adjust. All utility is relative, and so the B machines adjusted to requiring more utility in order to do the same work as before.


So, in the long term, what happens is the B machines now demand large utility for the development and creation of NEW B machine spawns, but yet the new B machines will still only produce as much as the old machines, but we had to bear the additional cost of making the machine. The creation of new machines is handled by a central factory that all machines put labor into.

In addition to this, the B machines now requires maintenance, and also requires maintenance of non-useful parts of the machine (for example appearance). However, there is one central authority that does appearance maintenance and it is all machines contribute to the central authority.

The machines also use a different programming code, so the local machinery has to adapt their code to the new machines. It was fine originally, because there were special management machines that converted the code of local machines to the code of the new machines. But after the new B machines needed more utility from different sectors of machine society, the other machines in society had to reprogram themselves to be able to accommodate the new machinery. And so since all of the area wasn't operating in the same language, overall efficiency went down.

Finally, the machine also starts to spew out large amounts of pollution that doesn't really harm the owner but has significant external costs on society.

So the impact of the machines is felt at different levels of society. Many native machines in the short term, especially the elites, benefit from the machines and encourage them to keep getting imported. However, some parts of the machine society generally dislike ALL new machines and exaggerate the drawbacks of ALL new machines.

Of course, since Area C is an area of machines that were new at some point, and all the machines in the nation ultimately came from some machine or another, the policymakers ultimately reject the position that new machines should be banned from entering the country.

However, these low quality machines keep getting imported and by the time that the locals realize that not all machines are equally useful, it is too late. The machines have become too embedded in society to be shipped out on an mass scale. So, the best working machinery has to spend more effort maintaining the crappy machines instead of pumping out products.

So, ultimately the addition of the new machines hurt in the long run, but wasn't bad in the short run. If there was some way to import the machinery only after it was built, and remove the highest polluting machinery, and not spend resources on maintenance of their appearances, then the imported machines could be a net benefit. However, that is unlikely.

So, instead what the policymakers should try is to only import new machines that may have high building costs and maintenance costs, but don't emit alot of pollution and have huge levels of productivity to balance out the other costs.

Unfortunately, the debate around the importation of machinery has gotten quite heated. In one camp sit the people who hate all new machinery. In another camp sits the machines who thinks all new imported machines are great and don't want to stop and new machines from coming in. In a third camp sits those who think that the new machines are good because they have such low costs for their owners.

In the fourth camp sits a tiny minority that points out that certain machines are more productive than others, and that we should only import the machines that produce more than their costs.

However, saying that not all machines are equally productive in the long run is considered an affront to the engineering genius of the great creator, and so is rarely mentioned.

And so, the problem remains unsolved.

And remember, humans are just organic machines.

Look around

I've always liked Kristof's editorials, though I often disagree with his positions. He brings attention to backwater places of the world with the poorest people, and ties events there into the greater global picture.

But it seems like in his last editorial he's so disgusted that he's grasping at straws trying to blame the US instead of the Kenyan people for their problems.


a mob of Kikuyus was running down Robert.

He claimed that he was Kikuyu as well, but the suspicious mob stripped him naked and noted that he was not circumcised, meaning that he could not be Kikuyu. That’s when his attackers held him down — smashing his arm when he tried to protect himself — and performed the grotesque surgery in the street to loud cheers from a huge throng.

The crowd shouted war cries and was preparing to decapitate Robert with a machete when the police arrived and rescued him.


And then he blames us


Many Kenyans also say that the United States has been a part of the problem. In our desire for stability, we acquiesced in election irregularities in countries like Ethiopia and Nigeria, inadvertently signaling that Mr. Kibaki could get away with stealing re-election.

The United States cozied up to Mr. Kibaki and initially congratulated him on his “victory,” without being emphatic enough that election-rigging is intolerable.


And then returns to the brutality


Flying over northern Kenya to Eldoret, you see smoke still rising from some of the countless Kikuyu farms that have been burned to the ground in areas where many Kikuyu were murdered. And here in Kisumu, the arriving Luo tell horrific stories.

“My wife was burned to death with our two children, aged 5 and 1 ½,” said Nicholas Ochieng, speaking as if in a daze. “Now I have no wife, no children, no house, no job. I have nothing.”

Mary Odhiambo, an aid worker tending to the new arrivals, said one shell-shocked woman arrived on a bus still clutching her husband’s head, wrapped up in newspapers, after a mob had hacked it off and mockingly presented it to her. A man arrived with his own severed penis in a sock.



I mean, COME ON. Seriously. You ask why I keep preaching HBD? It's because people who don't have abstract thinking skills (average Sub Saharan African IQ=70) think on a TRIBAL level. And don't understand nor respect the democratic process enough to create a functioning government with respect for minority rights.

And our attempt to impose one size fits all democracy on them is going to end up in flames. Sure, maybe we could have been more careful with Kenya, but stealing elections is something that happens all the time around the world. But the only place you see this level of brutality is in certain countries with certain religions and certain racial groups.

Bush stole the election, but how many Americans chopped each other? None, because we are a fundamentally CIVILIZED people.

And the longer we delude ourselves that people with the mental age of 12 can rule themselves and abide by our standards of civilization, the more innocent children are going to get hacked to pieces.

If you are a liberal and care about the world, stop going ga ga over Obama. Look at the world, and question your egalitarian beliefs.

It just won't go away!

This damn racial dating disparity!

GNXP has a recent post about this phenomenon. I love how you can get James Watson defenses as well as a plug for Mystery's tv show on the same blog.

Anyway, the blog has some interesting things to say:

Why is it that Asian guys seem to experience shell-shock in the bar and nightclub scene?

The answer may lie in the arms race between the sexes, whereby males become better and better at showing off or charming and seducing females, which makes females evolve higher standards for the showing-off trait or greater skepticism and iciness when they sense they're being hit on. It's clear that this arms race has escalated much farther in sub-Saharan Africa and other places of similar latitude, compared to more extreme latitudes (although latitude is not the primary cause -- probably pathogen load, ease of female farming, and so on, that correlate with it). So, when an Asian male is dropped into the lion's den of the Western bar and nightclub scene, he is not dealing with a merely unfamiliar group of females -- a large proportion of Europeans and Latin Americans -- but one that has evolved to defeat a far tougher opponent than he.



Now, the question is whether the evolution happened on a meme level, or a genetic level? I say that they go together, but what's important is that the love is NOT colorblind and the new blogger stuff white people like is living in denial with his painfully truthful/resentful look at white liberal American society.

I suppose it will take time for people to realize VERY basic truths about human nature. Given that Watson has been shushed, pickup artists vilified, and the average American prefers a Muslim president to an atheist president,

it's not hard to see why common sense is lacking in the world.

Oh well. At least there are smart people making money off it, like Asian Playboy but since his site is more marketing than tactics, something tells me that genetics can't be overcome in the time of a short seminar.

Approach anxiety is a chemical process. I have it. We all have it, to different degrees. Some races have less of it, other races have to try and desensitize themselves from it.



In other news, Obama looks like he's doing pretty well. Oh well. I don't know how he'll fare in November since John McCain is looking pretty old . Bless his soul, he's a decent man, but just not right for the job. He would have been great after 9/11, but we don't want anymore fear mongering.

Trying to lose weight?

If the genetic gods were not nice to you, and gave you a predisposition to loving carbs and things like chocolate cake, then here is something that will make you a little more careful the next time you eye the delicious brownie or cupcake in the bakery window. Hopefully this will make it easier to avoid those cravings.

Courtesy of jihad watch .

The Daily Mail reports of shop owners who sold chocolate cake SPRINKLED WITH SHIT.

Yup, you read that right.


Two shop-owners were today fined for selling chocolate cake - which had been sprinkled with human faeces.

A horrified customer ate the foul-smelling gateaux but noticed that it didn't taste or smell "quite right" and handed the cake to public health scientists.

The analysts soon established that the sweet treat was covered in faeces and legal proceedings against the shop owners were started.

Shop owners Saeed Hasmi, 25, and Jan Yadgari, 23, were fined £1,500 for selling food unfit for human consumption.


What a lovely world we live in. I think Allah is proud.

HBD hinders legitimate public policy

So, reading recent letters in response to a recent editorial in the times I was struck by the naivete and idealism that they display. And that their OWN liberal ideology will prevent their own policy prescription.

Should we lower to voting age to 16 and require a civics test for young voters to get an early voter permit?

This is what the editorial says:
"16-year-olds who want to start voting should be able to obtain an “early voting permit” from their high schools upon passing a simple civics course similar to the citizenship test...Tying adult rights to cognitive requirements could also smooth the path to dealing with a much bigger age-related social problem."

And the letters:

Anya Kamenetz proposes that 16-year-olds who can pass a civics test be allowed to vote. I think that we should take it a step further and make everyone take such a test.
We don’t expect everyone who is 18 to know how to drive, so we make them take a test. Age alone is insufficient.
Likewise, every voter should be required to know whom and what they are voting for. A civics test may prevent elections from turning into beauty contests.


What we really need are individual voters who can show themselves to be competent, not who fit our demographic biases: voters who can reason and who know the basics about government, the issues and the candidates. People of any age, gender or race who can demonstrate relevant competence should be allowed to vote, and the less competent should be excluded.
Whom would we elect if the electorate were actually competent? And whom would we have never elected?


I believe that only the most motivated and politically aware students would go the extra mile to obtain the “early voting permit” Anya Kamenetz suggests.
If this right were introduced, with a test of “cognitive requirements,” my generation would be able to have our valuable voices heard.


No disagreements. I absolutely think that voting is a privilege, not a right. And if people don't care enough about their country to research their leaders before voting, then they don't deserve a say. In the Spirit of Starship Troopers.

The problem, however, is one that extends to all other areas of society in which objective cognitive requirements are used to allocate benefits, such as on
firefighter exams, inequality at CUNY , and many other sociological variables .

Racial differences in intelligence exist. And any standard that relies on cognitive standards to determine eligibility will exclude disproportionate amounts of African Americans and Hispanics. So, if we impose cognitive tests on teenagers to determine their voting eligibility, their will be claim after claim of disenfranchisement.

Solution? Lower test standards for minority teenagers OR quotas or a cover up of the bias.

But what's most likely to happen? We are going to quickly abandon the standards, claiming that test scores shouldn't determine who has a right to vote and who doesn't. That test scores mean nothing.

Oh well.

ST

Obama speaks from Illinois:
"Change is coming to America"
Did you hear that lowering of his voice that he tried to mimic King?

How much longer is he going to do his bs red-state blue state crap? They stood up for change? The voices of the people can be heard? Maybe we don't have to be divided by race, region, and gender.

What bs.

"Yes we can."

Can what?

"Because you are tired of being let down"
Wtf? You are going to be the biggest let down ever when you don't win.

"This time we have to seize the moment, write a new chapter in American History."
What will we write, exactly? That we had a chance to erase Bush but instead we chased a fantasy.

"This Fall we owe the American people a real choice."
Right...Clinton agrees with McCain on everything. Like 100 years in Iraq.

"Between change and more of the same"
Right...universal health care-more of the same!

Between backwards and forwards, future and past.
Unite everyone from all religions around a common purpose.
Who is most likely to change Washington.
Put an end to the politics of fear

Uh, ok...?

(Uh, at this point, he basically repeats word for word his previous speech)
We can take our politics to a higher level. They have been taught to be cynical.
Ordinary people can still do ordinary (extraordinary) things. Freud-slip?



Yes we can!
Yes we can!
Yes we can!


Is it just me, or am I just tired? I've heard this speech before, and his attempt at uplifting. But other than saying we are one, how is he going to bridge the disparities?

I would not be opposed to a Obama presidency. But he is just way too out there to win the general.

Race doesn't matter? But Obama lost overwhelmingly on Latino voters.
Race doesn't matter? Then why did African Americans vote 8-1 against Clinton?
Not rich vs poor? Then why is 50,000$ the dividing line between Clinton and Obama voters?

If Obama and Clinton were tied among different tracks of Dems, then I'd somewhat agree with his assertion that we can move beyond. But among blacks, Latinos, rich, poor, educated, not, young, old, south, urban, men, women, there are serious divisions.

Differences in demographics, but not deep differences in ideology that divide the Republicans.

Anyway, I've settled on Clinton and I'm ready to dig in. But I really want this to be over VERY soon. The primary is just painful, since I don't like to see 2 people I like attack each other. Oh well.

Will it ever end?

How many people will have to die before we get it in our heads to stop imposing our values on others? This latest brutality from Kenya shows things don't look good.

Who would have thought? The pro-Bush nypost has a great article on the roots of the violence. Here is what he says:


The horrific violence in Kenya has its roots in three things: the corruption we overlook, the forms of democracy we demand - and, above all, the tribes that left-wing academics insist are only wicked European inventions....

The process has played out hundreds of times, in dozens of countries, but we still insist that democracy means "one citizen, one vote" for a central government with Western-style ministries. The model we've enforced around the world assumes that enlightened citizens won't be bound by tribal or religious loyalties.

But democracy as we know it doesn't work in countries where competition for resources persists along tribal or religious lines. (Kenya also has a Christian-Muslim fracture, though it's not at the forefront now.)

But our attempts to ride roughshod over fundamental identities to which human beings cling for dear life only resulted in the sort of failures we've witnessed in the post-colonial years - and the problems we faced in Iraq as we brushed aside sheiks in favor of corrupt bureaucrats.



And tragedy continues because the liberals and neo cons don't want to admit something deeply simple: The rest of the world is DIFFERENT from us. And there's nothing we can do about it.